How important are lens hoods and filters?

[amytug]

I have yet to buy my first dslr & lenses. I have everything picked out, but the part that gets me is: do I need hoods/filters?

I'm clueless when it comes to this.. obviously. :o

[skygod44]

Hey there!

May I direct you to this thread?
The best thing to do before you post is do as thorough "search" as you can, as many questions are already fully answered!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=640393

Hope you can get a camera soon and start putting pictures on here!
:D

[john-in-japan]

Greetings - Most lenses will come with a lens hood. In addition to keeping out stray/unwanted light from the lens, it offers some protection to it being knocked around. Mine are on 100% of the time. As to a UV filter, some debate - pros and cons. I shoot without them, not wanting anything between my glass and the subject. As to color filters and special filters, search the threads. Lots of good stuff.
Cheers,
John

[A.C.]

Filter? Yes!

I highly recommend getting at least a standard UV filter for your lens. If your lens ever falls and hits the ground, the UV filter will protect the front element (most cases). The filter will shatter, but your lens (most likely) will be fine.

That is probably one of the best investments you can make for your new gear.

Lens hood? I suggest getting one. It does help when you are out in the field. It's worth it in my opinion.

[BLACK MAMBA]

I find it a necessity. It's the security blanket
bw!

[HuskyKMA]

Hoods are the way to go. Not only will they do a lot to block stray light from causing flare, but 90% of they provide much more protection than a filter would. The only time I would use a UV filter is if I was shooting in extreme conditions, or to provide complete weather sealing to the lens.

That said, if you do decide to go the filter route, do not buy some cheapo filter. Buy a top of the line model from B+W or Hoya.

[Perry Ge]

Hoods: essential
Filters: optional

As simple as that. Nothing wrong with choosing to use filters, but a hood is a must.

[skygod44]

Hoods: essential
Filters: optional

As simple as that. Nothing wrong with choosing to use filters, but a hood is a must.

Looks like the OP has gone to sleep.....
Wakey, wakey!!!!
Have a look at all our hard effort getting you some info' and links!!!
HOODS = YES
FILTERS = IT'S UP TO YOU
;)

[SkipD]

Filter? Yes!

I highly recommend getting at least a standard UV filter for your lens. If your lens ever falls and hits the ground, the UV filter will protect the front element (most cases). The filter will shatter, but your lens (most likely) will be fine.

That is probably one of the best investments you can make for your new gear.

Lens hood? I suggest getting one. It does help when you are out in the field. It's worth it in my opinion.In reality, it is impossible for a filter to protect a lens in a fall-to-the-ground situation (except for one possible thing).

In order to "protect" a lens from impact, whatever hits the ground first has to provide some cushioning. Cushioning means that something has to collapse, deform, or otherwise slow down the impact by absorbing energy. In an impact, it is almost a sure thing that the glass will shatter. That is taking a miniscule amount of energy from the impact, but the shattering glass itself could damage the lens so it is NOT a desirable thing to have happen. A filter cannot possibly absorb energy like a good quality rigid lens hood can, for example. The ONLY thing that could be good about having a filter mounted in a lens crash would be that the lens' filter threads would be "protected" to a degree.

A good quality rigid lens hood can provide a tremendous amount of impact protection. The hood will bend or break up on impact, absorbing most of the energy of the impact. By absorbing the energy, the peak forces that get applied to the lens (and thus to the camera body) are greatly reduced. This is true "protection" in action. I had a Nikon F nose-dive to a concrete sidewalk in 1968. The hood bent in, saving the lens and body. Other than replacing the hood for aesthetic reasons, the lens and camera needed no repair and are in fine working condition to this day.

A lens hood also will keep stray light (from places out of the scene being photographed) from impacting the lens, improving the image quality.

A lens hood will keep your own fingers off of the lens' front element. The hood will act as a "bumper" during all of the day-to-day impacts with things around you.

A filter can protect a lens' front element from rain and things like blowing sand. However, a cheap filter will very likely degrade image quality.

Cleaning a lens is not a difficult task. One needs to learn proper technique and have proper tools for the task, though. A lens is actually more resistant to surface damage during cleaning than most filters. The fact is that none of my lenses have ever had filters on them for "protection", and the glass in my 40+ year old lenses is all nearly pristine.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I was thinking about this the other day.

So many times I've seen people with the hoods on backwards. In all sorts of conditions.

IMHO they can't hurt unless you need to stick on a macro-ring flash or something.

I use them all the time. They make my 100mm 2.8 macro look longer too. Which is pretty important.

[SuzyView]

First, what do you shoot? Don't buy too much camera for your needs or you will be wasting your money.

Certain lenses need the hood for sure, some don't. The 85 1.8 does not need the little hood. It's a pain to put on and take off. The 24-70 needs the hood, but can't use it on the cropped cameras when you use the one board flash as the lens is so long, you can see the lens shadow in the shot. So the answer is, it depends. I use the hood and UV or CPL filter in bright light, no filters indoors.

[neilwood32]

First, what do you shoot? Don't buy too much camera for your needs or you will be wasting your money.

Certain lenses need the hood for sure, some don't. The 85 1.8 does not need the little hood. It's a pain to put on and take off. The 24-70 needs the hood, but can't use it on the cropped cameras when you use the one board flash as the lens is so long, you can see the lens shadow in the shot. So the answer is, it depends. I use the hood and UV or CPL filter in bright light, no filters indoors.

For light purposes i would agree with you however for protection I am firmly in the camp of hood at all times (except when im shooting in a fairly static enviroment ie portraits of family etc).

To add to the rest of the opinions:
Hood: Requirement for protection
Filter: UV or skylight filter optional unless its a high risk scenario ie wind picking up lots of dust which could scratch the front element of the lens. CPL and others depending on scenario.

[Jon]

See the Protective Filter FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177) sticky in the Lens Forum. I always use both hoods and filters. Hoods protect against stray light and things coming in from the side. Filters are necessary when facing windy conditions, especially prop- and jet-wash, small children and animals who want to see with their hands/noses, branches while you're in heavy undergrowth, and rain, among other things. Nothing will make a difference if your lens suffers a hard fall.

[Ralph Merlino]

Shade and uv filter is a must for me on every lens
I own.

[amytug]

Yep- I went to bed right after I posted.. I really should have done a search, but I guess since it was bedtime (and I'd arleady spend entirely too much time searching stuff on potn) I thought I'd post. 'doh!

OK so hoods are a must and I need to research filters :) (and proper cleaning techniques)

[skygod44]

Yep- I went to bed right after I posted.. I really should have done a search, but I guess since it was bedtime (and I'd arleady spend entirely too much time searching stuff on potn) I thought I'd post. 'doh!

OK so hoods are a must and I need to research filters :) (and proper cleaning techniques)

Welcome back into your own thread! :D

And don't worry about me teasing you....POTN members (me included) span this wonderful planet, so time zones can be quite a problem!

But, back to your thread and I think Jon pointed you to a good sticky about filters.

Read up on it, try some shots with/without and decide for yourself.

Quite a few togs are VERY emotional about how filters degrade image IQ, blah, blah, blah....but I think it's up to you. Ok, the front element on a lens is made of tougher stuff than a filter, but I do get kids poking their fingers inside lens-hoods, and the "feeling" of just wiping muck off a filter is more acceptable to me than off a lens element.

I've never noticed a major IQ drop...but I don't pixel-peep either. Maybe that's part of it? More time taking pictures and less time peering at them at 100% on a computer screen.

Back to you...

[Jon]

I've had kids sticking more than fingers inside lens hoods . . .
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=177214&d=1180591256

Also puppies, pigs, . . .

[geo1976]

So would a hood and filter be overkill?

[skygod44]

So would a hood and filter be overkill?

Hey Geo1976....as said above, they don't do the same thing.

In the picture from Jon which has been up before, a hood does diddly-squat to protect the lens from being licked - which is an inconvenience at best. And the filter does nothing to stop flare/reduction in contrast & saturation - it might even add to the problem a tad if you're really anal about it (just wait for the reactions to that comment ;)).

The point is, if you use a filter, use a good one. If you think you should use a hood to reduce flare etc., then USE it. Don't leave it in your camera bag.

There are, of course, other filters such as circular polarizers and those classics of the 60s, 70s and 80s starburst filters, etc....but those are a different story all together.

[Jon]

I use both, always. If it was just saliva, maybe it'd be an inconvenience; there's a nose up there too in that photo. I wouldn't want a camel poking their nose too close to my unprotected lens either - they spit (as can their cousins the llama and alpaca).

[jsinon]

Hood, almost all the time unless I'm using the CPL. Then its a pain to adjust the effect. Also, no hood when using the grad nd's. As for "protective" filters, never. I'm sure they have their uses, and if I was out in very windy dusty/sandy locations I might think about it but if I'm just out walking around I feel the hood is enough.

[TMEWERT]

I always use the best UV filter I can buy on my lenses. I would rather be cleaning the filter glass than my expensive lens glass. If any particles get behind the filter, then it's just a slight cleaning with a soft lens brush/blower on the lens and then the filter goes back on. With this method the lens glass gets less traffic on it which is a good thing in my mind.
My $.02 worth.

[sandpiper]

Hoods: Yes. Protect the lens and improve image quality, no 'downside' to using a hood apart from possibly making it a little hard to adjust a CPL filter.

Filters: Personal choice. For me it's a no, but others swear by them. In 30+ years of photography I have never managed to damage a front element, despite them being heavily handled and never using a protective filter. I have however known a lens WITH a protective filter get trashed because the filter broke and the shards of filter glass scratched the element.

A filter can protect a lens in a small number of specific situations, in most situations it offers little protection but can itself get broken, thus risking damage caused by the filter. A cheap filter will degrade image quality, an expensive one will make little noticeable difference to IQ, but can still be a problem in some situations.

I believe that much of the myth, that you MUST always use a filter, is brought about by the retailers telling buyers this, in order to increase the sale value.

If it makes you feel 'safer' though, go for it (but always use the hood)

[SkipD]

Hoods: Yes. Protect the lens and improve image quality, no 'downside' to using a hood apart from possibly making it a little hard to adjust a CPL filter.

Filters: Personal choice. For me it's a no, but others swear by them. In 30+ years of photography I have never managed to damage a front element, despite them being heavily handled and never using a protective filter. I have however known a lens WITH a protective filter get trashed because the filter broke and the shards of filter glass scratched the element.

A filter can protect a lens in a small number of specific situations, in most situations it offers little protection but can itself get broken, thus risking damage caused by the filter. A cheap filter will degrade image quality, an expensive one will make little noticeable difference to IQ, but can still be a problem in some situations.

I believe that much of the myth, that you MUST always use a filter, is brought about by the retailers telling buyers this, in order to increase the sale value.

If it makes you feel 'safer' though, go for it (but always use the hood)Ditto - except that I have to add ten years plus to the same experience.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^Maybe I'm doing something wrong, because I've had scratches appear on protective filters (happy to have the scratch there than on the front element). So I'm a protective filter guy.

This debate goes on and on and it comes down to preference.

[LowriderS10]

I have filters on everything and hoods on everything but my 50 1.4. I can't count the number of times the hood has protected my lens and the filter has kept all sorts of crap from hitting the lens...

[ejicon]

Hoods: essential
Filters: optional

As simple as that. Nothing wrong with choosing to use filters, but a hood is a must.

Hoods: essential
Filters: essential

Even if it's a clear protective none-UV filter, always have one on. The one time if seen damage to a lens, a friend accidentally cornered a rail with a 17-40 L. Boy was he lucky that the filter cracked and nothing more. Lesson learned x100

[Perry Ge]

Hoods: essential
Filters: essential

Even if it's a clear protective none-UV filter, always have one on. The one time if seen damage to a lens, a friend accidentally cornered a rail with a 17-40 L. Boy was he lucky that the filter cracked and nothing more. Lesson learned x100

I used to think that. I've since changed my mind. I still have at least one protective filter for each thread size, but I use them less and less, and I certainly am no longer buying one per lens. If I bought one UV filter per lens, I will have spent more than enough to buy another lens.

I went out birding today, trekked through the snow with the 400 5.6L, crawled through shrubbery and branches too. No filter. I use the filters to complete weatherseals, and I have one on my 85L just because the front element is so huge and exposed, even with the hood on.

[hollis_f]

Hoods: Essential
Protective Filters: Virtually useless in most conditions
Insurance: Essential

Decent insurance will be cheaper than half a dozen 'protective' filters and will have a minimal impact on image quality.

[Nick5]

Hey there!

May I direct you to this thread?
The best thing to do before you post is do as thorough "search" as you can, as many questions are already fully answered!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=640393

Hope you can get a camera soon and start putting pictures on here!
:DAmy. Ask first. Then do a search if you desire.
Without questions, this becomes a search forum, not a discussion forum.
No question is a stupid question.

[sandpiper]

^^Maybe I'm doing something wrong, because I've had scratches appear on protective filters (happy to have the scratch there than on the front element). So I'm a protective filter guy.



That's because filters aren't as tough as lens elements and scratch very easily. Odds are that whatever scratched them wouldn't have scratched the element at all.

[eelnoraa]

Filter is mainly for protection of the lens, other than that, it doesn't do anything for IQ if not degrading it. So only get UV if your lens is worth protecting. By worth protecting, I mean the value of the lens should be significantly higher than the cost of the filter. So forget about UV filters for 50f1.8 for kit lens.

Hood on the other hand is a "should have". It protects lens from bumping, and it improve IQ by reducing flare. So use the hood whenever you can. For non-L lens, you can purchase 3rd party hood from ebay for much less than OEM Canon verions.

[SkipD]

That's because filters aren't as tough as lens elements and scratch very easily. Odds are that whatever scratched them wouldn't have scratched the element at all.Quite true...

[SkipD]

Hoods: essential
Filters: essential

Even if it's a clear protective none-UV filter, always have one on. The one time if seen damage to a lens, a friend accidentally cornered a rail with a 17-40 L. Boy was he lucky that the filter cracked and nothing more. Lesson learned x100I'd bet that your friend did not have a rigid hood mounted to the lens....

[Stealthy Ninja]

That's because filters aren't as tough as lens elements and scratch very easily. Odds are that whatever scratched them wouldn't have scratched the element at all.

Then again, maybe it would have. ;)

I'm not one to gamble. I know filters aren't necessary. But I'm firmly in the "why not" camp. The negatives of having one (possible loss of quality... maybe) are outweighed by the benefits (weather sealing, protection from kids fingers etc.) If people don't want them, cool. If you choose to have them, cool. No skin off my teeth.

:)


Seems to me people are more passionate about their opinion on this than they should be. It's like the Mac vs PC debate, though even less important.

Hoods are always good though. Just don't put them on backwards. Might as well take it off. ;)

[skygod44]

....I know filters aren't necessary. But I'm firmly in the "why not" camp. Hoods are always good though. Just don't put them on backwards. Might as well take it off. ;)

I agree with you Ninj' on the filter debate - far too many opinions getting out of hand, but about the lens hoods....? I thought putting it on backwards was a "style statement", kinda like wearing a baseball cap backwards. It says about the wearer/user, "I know what it is and how to wear/use it, but I'm too cool to follow your dictatorial my-way-or-the-highway middle-class values!!!!"

;)

[I wonder, what with all the anger recently about the Fairey picture, anyone will realise I'm joking...?]

[DDCSD]

:) :)

Man, I love filter debates!!!

I don't use a filter for "protection". I do have hoods for my lenses (and actually tape them in place when using). This provides all the protection that I need.

I've seen way too many threads on here with people wondering why their photos have bad flare or poor contrast in them to want to chance a once in a lifetime shot getting ruined because I wanted to "protect" my lens.

Here is a recent example, see image #6:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=643091

[Stealthy Ninja]

I agree with you Ninj' on the filter debate - far too many opinions getting out of hand, but about the lens hoods....? I thought putting it on backwards was a "style statement", kinda like wearing a baseball cap backwards. It says about the wearer/user, "I know what it is and how to wear/use it, but I'm too cool to follow your dictatorial my-way-or-the-highway middle-class values!!!!"


Oh it's the style for sure. Hip to the hop.

This debate may go for many pages (again). Esp. with DDCSD's ill informed opinions. :p

[DDCSD]

Oh it's the style for sure. Hip to the hop.

This debate may go for many pages (again). Esp. with DDCSD's ill informed opinions. :p

Yep, I'm big time ill! ;) I love out-of-context quotes!

[skygod44]

Oh it's the style for sure. Hip to the hop.
This debate may go for many pages (again). Esp. with DDCSD's ill informed opinions. :p
Careful Ninj'....
Don't make DDCSD angry...you wouldn't like him when he's angry!
;)
Yep, I'm big time ill! ;) I love out-of-context quotes!
See!!!!!!!
Told you, Ninj'! If DDCSD's skin starts turning green and his shirt starts to rip, I'm outta here!

[Here and There]

Hoods, absolutely. The only lenses I don't have a hood for are the nifty fifty and the canon 100 macro I'm getting soon.

Filters depend on the situation. I do a lot of shooting near beaches/bays and in those places I always have a UV or polarizing filter on.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Yep, I'm big time ill! ;) I love out-of-context quotes!

Yikes.

Once, in a comic, I saw DDCSD fight wolverine. It was totally gnarly dudes.

DDCSD is sick. He needs a (head) doctor. :p

:lol:

Back on topic.

Protection filters are absolutely necessary! If you disagree with me, you're not cool and can't be in my special club. :p

[skygod44]

Yikes.

Once, in a comic, I saw DDCSD fight wolverine. It was totally gnarly dudes.

DDCSD is sick. He needs a (head) doctor. :p

:lol:

Back on topic.

Protection filters are absolutely necessary! If you disagree with me, you're not cool and can't be in my special club. :p

I actually cried with laughter at your reply!
I'm just hoping no mods wade in to stop the fun, insults and general pleasure this thread is now generating!

Back on topic.
There aren't that many members pointing out that filters can be taken off one's lenses relatively easily if flare could occur. And then (now here comes the clever bit, so pay attention!), we can put the filters back on again if the pesky wind starts whipping up sand 'n' grit 'n' animal spittle 'n' poo, that could leave our lovely white pleasure-tubes (that's "L" lenses, for the uninitiated) dirty!

[Stealthy Ninja]

I actually cried with laughter at your reply!
I'm just hoping no mods wade in to stop the fun, insults and general pleasure this thread is now generating!

Back on topic.
There aren't that many members pointing out that filters can be taken off one's lenses relatively easily if flare could occur. And then (now here comes the clever bit, so pay attention!), we can put the filters back on again if the pesky wind starts whipping up sand 'n' grit 'n' animal spittle 'n' poo, that could leave our lovely white pleasure-tubes (that's "L" lenses, for the uninitiated) dirty!

LOL.

I gots to get me some of those pleasure tubes. ;)
Filter debates will rage for decades to come. Until Canon build in retractable “protection” filters that is.

BTW all my “insults” are in good fun. DDCSD is a good bloke. :)

D – Disturbingly good at photography
D – Double posts? NEVER!
C – Can be described as “awesome”
S – Stealthy Ninja (he’ll never be, though close… ;) )
D – Another D… come on!

[skygod44]

LOL.
I gots to get me some of those pleasure tubes.
Oh yeah baby!!!
....
BTW all my “insults” are in good fun. DDCSD is a good bloke. :)
D – Disturbingly good at photography
D – Double posts? NEVER!
C – Can be described as “awesome”
S – Stealthy Ninja (he’ll never be, though close… ;) )
D – Another D… come on!

＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾＾
What the Hell was that?!?!?
Since when did you turn into the PR man for the Honk Kong wing of the Mickey Mouse Club?
I dare not imagine what you'd do with "Skygod".
S is for Silly.
K is for Klutz
Y is for Young at heart, and in the head
G is for "Go for it! Ra, Ra, Ra!!!!"
O is for, err, uhm, what is O for, apart from Orange?
D is for Delightful....'cos the Skygod loves us all.
[All said in the voice of a 9 year old girl wearing braces - (think the USA-types call 'em "retainers")]

[DDCSD]

I think I'm being picked on, but I'm not sure.... :(

;)

[mdr]

Protective filters? Yes I have them. But it's up to you to asses value/risk/insurance whether you think it's worth it. A top notch Hoya Super HMC is pricey, but nothing compared to a scratch on a £1,000 lens.

Any other filters you should consider? The circular polariser. I never leave home without one. You can't compensate for not having one by Photoshop post processing. Any other filter can be achieved in Photoshop.

Lens hood, I never leave home without one.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Protective filters? Yes I have them. But it's up to you to asses value/risk/insurance whether you think it's worth it.

"2 asses"? Or "to assess"?

I think I'm being picked on, but I'm not sure.... :(

;)

Maybe. People seem to be saying you have 2 asses... :lol:


Back on topic.

Protection filters are for the weak and smart. (who's side am I on anyway?)

Seriously though, hoods are cool. If you don’t have one you’re not “in”. Just make sure you turn them around the right way. Nothing screams poser to me like someone with their hood (baseball cap) on backwards.
;)

[skygod44]

I think I'm being picked on, but I'm not sure....

You are! And since The Stealthy Ninja is a stealthy ninja, and I'm a black belt at karate (well, what else is there to do in Japan for 5 years?), you'd better watch your "p's & q's"!
;)
"2 asses"? Or "to assess"?
Maybe. People seem to be saying you have 2 asses... :lol:
Back on topic.
Protection filters are for the weak and smart. (who's side am I on anyway?)
Seriously though, hoods are cool. If you don’t have one you’re not “in”. Just make sure you turn them around the right way. Nothing screams poser to me like someone with their hood (baseball cap) on backwards.
;)
You misunderstood, ya HK-Mickey Mouse Club maniac!
It's all to do with the accent.
If you said "assess" as if you were His Holiness, Sir Sean Connory, you'd see why spelling it with 3 Ss is correct.

But I digresssssss.
Back on topic:
Protection in all walks of life is a choice.
But wearing a hoodie is a must.
And I can't believe this thread has been going so long?!

[Stealthy Ninja]

I blame skygod for making this thread go for longer than it should.

Oh and DDCSD of course. Giving noobies the thought that they can do without protection filters. His well thought out arguments are nothing to my off-the-top-of-my-head-witty-comments.

So, we all agree then.

Hood = yes
Protection = up to you.


???

[fiorano94]

I personally would rather have a hood on than a filter, unless the filter is a CPL on a wide lens... So basically, telephoto = hood, wide = CPL.

That's just me though.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I personally would rather have a hood on than a filter, unless the filter is a CPL on a wide lens... So basically, telephoto = hood, wide = CPL.

That's just me though.

You like lens flare?

Hood on a WA is more important IMHO. :)

Though you have to be careful of vignetting.

[Jon]

I'd rather use an UV or a ND grad on a wide than a CPL. On wide lenses, a CPL will demonstrate clearly how polarization is affected by the sun's position. IOW, you'll see marked differences across the sky. I never know what Mother Nature (or Man) is going to toss at me, so every lens that I can mount a filter on has the best I can get.

[skygod44]

You like lens flare?
Hood on a WA is more important IMHO. :)
Though you have to be careful of vignetting.
Ah, but if you had the wonderful EF-S 10-22 from Uncle "Can" and Auntie "On", you'd not worry about flare, even on an u l t r a - w i d e. That lens is why I won't sell my 30D when I get the 1D4! It's a gem.
I'd rather use an UV or a ND grad on a wide than a CPL. On wide lenses, a CPL will demonstrate clearly how polarization is affected by the sun's position. IOW, you'll see marked differences across the sky. I never know what Mother Nature (or Man) is going to toss at me, so every lens that I can mount a filter on has the best I can get.
The Troll Killer is right about a CPL on a WA lens. You get some amazing hue variance in the sky.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Ah, but if you had the wonderful EF-S 10-22 from Uncle "Can" and Auntie "On", you'd not worry about flare, even on an u l t r a - w i d e. That lens is why I won't sell my 30D when I get the 1D4! It's a gem.

The Troll Killer is right about a CPL on a WA lens. You get some amazing hue variance in the sky.

True the 10-22 is pretty good with flare. But I still thought at times it would be better to have the hood (I just borrowed my friends for a few weeks).

I'm saving to get the Sigma 12-24 for the 5Dmkii. I think that lens could have some creative possibilities for sure.... comes with a hood too... but I can't stick on a "protective" filter, so I don't know what to do! :(

:lol:

Probably this: http://www.inspiring-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5520

[mr.lemarc]

hoods for me. because of the cost of "good" UV filters and possibility of image quality concerns -- I've decided to stick with hoods only.

But, I think I might be a little more protective if I had some L-glass or some more expensive lens. At that point, a hundred dollar something UV/protective filter won't seem like overkill.

[skygod44]

True the 10-22 is pretty good with flare. But I still thought at times it would be better to have the hood (I just borrowed my friends for a few weeks).
I'm saving to get the Sigma 12-24 for the 5Dmkii. I think that lens could have some creative possibilities for sure.... comes with a hood too... but I can't stick on a "protective" filter, so I don't know what to do! :(
:lol:

Probably this: http://www.inspiring-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5520

Hey! That looks sooooo convenient!
Clearly these fliddly screw-in filters are just too small to be effective.

I wonder if our local glazier could knock me up a quick 2' x 2' double-glazed-window-pane-protection-filter for when it gets cold?

[Stealthy Ninja]

Hey! That looks sooooo convenient!
Clearly these fliddly screw-in filters are just too small to be effective.

I wonder if our local glazier could knock me up a quick 2' x 2' double-glazed-window-pane-protection-filter for when it gets cold?

Yeah. I need a challenge these days. Photography is just too darn easy for me. :lol:

[skygod44]

Yeah. I need a challenge these days. Photography is just too darn easy for me. :lol:
Well you could try to learn some real ninja moves, do a timed self photograph, and post the results....with or without filters and lens hoods.

If I may make the first request?
I'd like to see you do "The Mantis"
;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well you could try to learn some real ninja moves, do a timed self photograph, and post the results....with or without filters and lens hoods.

If I may make the first request?
I'd like to see you do "The Mantis"
;)

Don't want to go off topic. But I believe you can see me do the mantis in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=HK&feature=channel&v=_Ft5JsUJ8PU

Hoods FTW!

;)

[skygod44]

Don't want to go off topic. But I believe you can see me do the mantis in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=HK&feature=channel&v=_Ft5JsUJ8PU

Hoods FTW!

;)

That is hilarious. I hate to admit, but my body used to look as white and scrawny when I was that age.

Oh the shame of it.

Luckily though, when I use a hood on my lenses, I can now make anyone's body look like Arnie Schwartzie before he ate too many cigars.

So, I stick to my thoughts....hoods = yes!
[and I blame The Stealthy One for extending this thread beyond all recognition, while promoting his own Ninja-stylee exploits!]
;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

We really need to get this thread back on track.

I think really, truely protection filters are a MUST and everyone should buy the most expensive one they can. That way Hoya and B+W can ride out the current economic climate.

Only the best UV filters can protect you from my UV (ultra violent) mantis style attacks…

[skygod44]

Hey there Stealthy,
I just checked out the OP's first post as I was wondering what had happened to her....
....then I noticed this comment:

I have yet to buy my first dslr & lenses. I have everything picked out, but the part that gets me is: do I need hoods/filters?
I'm clueless when it comes to this.. obviously. :o

Something tells me all this good advice about hoods and filters and the deadly attack of the Mantis is kinda flying over her head a little...
:oops:

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Good point.

Just to be nice...

Dear OP (original poster),

Basically the consensus is that having hoods is a good thing. They help prevent lens flare in your photos by blocking stray light from coming in from the sides of your lens. Also, they help protect the front element (glass bit) of the lens from bumps and knocks (mantis attacks). They work is a similar way that a baseball cap works to keep stray light out of your eyes.

UV filters are optional (they do protect your lens from salt spray, sand (sort of) etc. but often they are not really needed), one thing is for sure they (on the whole) certainly can’t hurt (though some argue they case flare/ghosting etc. most don’t find this a problem… and if they do it’s because they have a cheap filter on). You don’t have to buy the super expensive ones. Something from the brand Hoya seems to work well and won’t break the bank.
The “protective” filter debate ranges on like crazy. Some people take it super serious (mainly bloggers with too much time on their hands). But most have a “do whatever YOU feel like” attitude. Though we may tease each other about our choice, usually it’s with a fun loving heart.

Love,
Stealthy “knows best” Ninja.

[skygod44]

^^ Good point.

Just to be nice...

Dear OP (original poster),

Basically the consensus is that having hoods is a good thing. They help prevent lens flare in your photos by blocking stray light from coming in from the sides of your lens. Also, they help protect the front element (glass bit) of the lens from bumps and knocks (mantis attacks). They work is a similar way that a baseball cap works to keep stray light out of your eyes.

UV filters are optional (they do protect your lens from salt spray, sand (sort of) etc. but often they are not really needed), one thing is for sure they (on the whole) certainly can’t hurt (though some argue they case flare/ghosting etc. most don’t find this a problem… and if they do it’s because they have a cheap filter on). You don’t have to buy the super expensive ones. Something from the brand Hoya seems to work well and won’t break the bank.
The “protective” filter debate ranges on like crazy. Some people take it super serious (mainly bloggers with too much time on their hands). But most have a “do whatever YOU feel like” attitude. Though we may tease each other about our choice, usually it’s with a fun loving heart.

Love,
Stealthy “knows best” Ninja.

I think that was one of the nicest, sweetest, cutest most fluffy messages I've seen on POTN.
Well done, and I hope the OP sees it.
:D

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Posting it gave me diabetes.

[Roy Webber]

Filter? Yes!

I highly recommend getting at least a standard UV filter for your lens. If your lens ever falls and hits the ground, the UV filter will protect the front element (most cases). The filter will shatter, but your lens (most likely) will be fine.

That is probably one of the best investments you can make for your new gear.

Lens hood? I suggest getting one. It does help when you are out in the field. It's worth it in my opinion.
This happened to my 100-400...on concrete! The thread is so damaged, the filter ring is on for good :(

[skygod44]

This happened to my 100-400...on concrete! The thread is so damaged, the filter ring is on for good :(

Too sad for words.

Well, except for, "Keep yer hands away from my 100-400!!!!!!!!"

I'd also have to say that the idea of a thin piece of relatively cheap glass protecting a 1.5kg lump of metal from damage is a bit crazy. Anyone who has stated that this is a use of a filter needs to check a few details about mass and acceleration in their school physics textbooks!!!

I use "Protection filters" because I don't want to touch my front elements. I also don't want any kids to touch them either - which is common when you own a school! But I'm not worried about dirty fingers damaging the front element. It's more a concern that regular scrubbing of the front element might take off the coatings.

AND, with a filter on the front, I feel less worried about tiny particles getting in - especially my 10-22 where the front element doesn't simply retract, it's "sunken" into the lens body.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Just to throw on in for the "others" a lot of people say the shattering UV "protection" filter in the above mentioned case, is not protecting anything. If anything the shattering glass will scratch the front element.

The front element is a lot stronger than the UV filter so a hood would be better protection in this case.

Of course I think that's all rubbish. :p

[skygod44]

Just to throw on in for the "others" a lot of people say the shattering UV "protection" filter in the above mentioned case, is not protecting anything. If anything the shattering glass will scratch the front element.

The front element is a lot stronger than the UV filter so a hood would be better protection in this case.

Of course I think that's all rubbish. :p

Had a sudden feeling of sadness for this thread, so thought I'd add to it...

I wonder if anyone has tested (as in, using "science") the relative strength of a front element of say, the 70-200 f/4, to a high quality "protector" filter.

To clarify that:

Just what can a filter withstand BEFORE BEING DAMAGED?

AND

What can you do to a front element, BEFORE IT IS PERMANENTLY SCORED.

AND....

What are the effects on taking pictures of each?

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^^ Mmm interesting thought...

Hence the debate will rage until someone with more dollars than sense does what you suggest.

;)

[skygod44]

^^^ Mmm interesting thought...

Hence the debate will range until someone with more dollars than sense does what you suggest.

;)

Hey there Ninj' :D
Good to see you re-joined the party.....despite being late for "work".

Unfortunately, my laptop is still at school, so my time is limited to as long as it takes Missus Skygod to have a shower and then come out and shout something rude in Japanese that might translate to something like: "one more of the time, that, you, does [it] need, always, what is the problem(?) idiot, you".

Well....you get the idea.... :confused:

[Wilt]

The 'protection' afforded by the hood...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7644573&postcount=1


Looks to me like a lever arm at times, instead!

[Stealthy Ninja]

Driving along with a 35L loose in your car won't help you. :lol:

[DDCSD]

Driving along with a 35L loose in your car won't help you. :lol:

It probably would have been better had it not been actually attached to the camera.

[mikekelley]

I'm not paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lens to stick a 40 dollar piece of "UV protection" on the end of it. Just use a hood and dont be a goober.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Then buy a $60 one.

... and let them eat cake... :lol:

[Denzil]

I'm unfamiliar with hoods but is there one that fits the kit lens for the XSi/450D? I was actually thinking of picking one up unless you guys advise otherwise.

[Wilt]

Hoods do nothing for protection from dog noses and tongues, or toddlers with messy hands, or blowing salt spray or beach sand.

There is a time and a place for everything, and to not use them because of conceptual biases is limiting onesself and leaving yourself open to risk.

[easypz]

I'm unfamiliar with hoods but is there one that fits the kit lens for the XSi/450D? I was actually thinking of picking one up unless you guys advise otherwise.

Which lens is the kit lens for the XSi? It was a 17-85is at one time. Which one do you have. I have a like new hood for a 17-85IS if you're interested let me know.

[Jon]

The 18-55 takes the EW-60C. It is also the hood for the various 28-90 zooms, so shouldn't be too hard to locate.